Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:54, 20 November 2009

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345

User:HistoricWarrior007 appeal of topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Note: I have reformatted this request - it appears to be an appeal against a ban imposed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise after he was told this was the place to appeal[1], but was incorrectly formatted as a complaint. henrik•talk 22:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning appeal of topic ban by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

User requesting enforcement:

HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Appeal of topic ban

Sanction or remedy that this user wishes to appeal:

Unjust Topic Ban

HistoricWarrior, with this edit I feel you have crossed a line. You (and others) were warned some weeks ago that the permanent hostility and edit-warring on that article would not be tolerated forever. For the aggressive "ownership" attitude, hostility, threats and personal attacks expressed in this latest posting of yours, in connection with the months-long history of near-permanent edit-warring on the same article, you are now topic-banned from the 2008 South Ossetia War article, all articles related to it, and all related talk pages, for a period of two months. This topic ban will be logged at the Arbcom enforcement section of WP:DIGWUREN. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of prior warnings:

HistoricWarrior007 has no history of prior warnings.

Ban was imposed here: [2]

Enforcement action requested:

Exoneration from the Unjust Topic Ban

Additional comments by HistoricWarrior007 (talk):

I do not believe the ban is appropriate, as it goes against this wishes of the Community, 6 experienced editors told Future Perfect at Sunrise that his watchful eye in our article was unnecessary, and no one spoke out in his favor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring, and the ban based on the policy I did not know about, WP:DIGWUREN.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFuture_Perfect_at_Sunrise&action=historysubmit&diff=325113200&oldid=325060114

Discussion concerning appeal

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

I fully stand behind this topic ban: HistoricWarrior007 has a history of a persistently hostile, very combative battleground attitude over that article, combined with nearly incessant slow revert-warring over many months. I have become convinced that his presence is the main factor that has made the talkpage of 2008 South Ossetia war an incredibly toxic environment. The edit that triggered the sanction [3] was just the straw that broke the camel's back. His conduct here and previously on WP:RFAR, with the aggressive claim that all those dozens (or hundreds, by now?) reverts of his were not revert-warring but removal of "vandalism", and his immediate assumptions of bad faith on my part, just illustrate the same problem. (Incidentally, it's ironic I was accused of being anti-EMLL when I sanctioned Jacurek (talk · contribs) the other day; now I'm being accused of being pro-EMLL because I happen to sanction somebody on the other side.)

Since the topic ban, HW has shifted his activity to other Russian war topics, such as Dagestan and Chechnya, and some of his edits have been so blatantly tendentious I am seriously considering if even more stringent restrictions are necessary. Here [4] he is inserting an unsourced, highly negative biographical assertion as a fact, when he must know (from the main article on that person) that the underlying claim is, at best, contentious. Here [5], in an edit that is actually skirting the topic ban (a bio of a semi-notable political analyst, which he only wrote as a WP:COATRACK because he was previously promoting quotations from that analyst on the South Ossetia article for evident POV reasons), he describes the orientation of a Russian political journal as "a common sense magazine that does it best to explain what is going on in Russia without pandering to corporate interests". – I am convinced no editor of HW's intelligence and experience could possibly, even for a minute, fool himself into believing this is a neutral description. Therefore, this edit, even though only affecting a minor side issue, displays a reckless disregard for NPOV. This kind of irresponsible editing, by failing to strive for NPOV, is in and by itself sanctionable behaviour (in terms of the discretionary sanctions clause: failure "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia"). 07:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just adding a dummy edit here to prevent the thread from being archived without a conclusion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HistoricWarrior007

Before reading further, I ask the reader only one thing: Look beyond the accusation. Look for the actual evidence. That is all I ask.

FutPerf accuses me of (1) ownership of the article; (2) edit-warring and hostility; (3) threats;

(1) Ownership: I have encouraged everyone to use the discussion page prior to editing, as is required by the article’s "controversial" template. I have discussed all of my edits, prior to making them. When a new user made an edit that I didn’t agree with, I reverted it, and asked him to use the talkpage; after the discussion, his arguments were better than mine, and he made the edit. There is a ton of material in the article that I disagree with in the article, but sometimes I win the discussion and they go, and sometimes I lose the discussion and they stay. And if anyone still thinks that I “own” the article, I volunteer for a 4 month long 1RR restriction in that article.

(2) Edit-Warring and hostility: as was previously pointed out to FutPerf, what was occurring in the article was not edit-warring but vandalism, and reverts of said vandalism. Despite 6 users pointing this out to FutPerf, all of whom are knowledgeable, long-term editors of the article, with a 2-4 pro-Georgian - pro-Russian split, FutPerf ignored our combined statements, and proceeded to claim edit-warring where none existed. Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring.

(3) Threats: I challenge FutPerf to find a single threat that I made. Here is what FutPerf believes is a threat: "I am tired of you using these tactics. I won't hesitate to expose anymore of these tactics, the minute I see them. So don't use them." On the other hand FutPerf has been accused of making threats in our article, as is shown in the link above.

FutPerf claims that I was warned, in the above listed link and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War However, in the latter link, ArbCom completely ignored FutPerf’s request; when a Court ignores a request, the status quo prevails, and no warning occurs.

I also fail to see why I am being punished per WP:DIGWUREN, considering that I had no knowledge of WP:DIGWUREN. FutPerf states that it applies to all Eastern European Articles, but FutPerf failed to mention it in both of his "warnings".

The edit that I am being topic-banned for can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=historysubmit&diff=324541357&oldid=324532032 Granted, it wasn’t my brightest move, and the joke at the end was in poor taste. Nevertheless, in my defense, the edit involved the title debates, which occupy, literally, over 100 pages; it’s where every point was argued and counter-argued at least several times.

It is also interesting to note that FurPerf topic-banned me shortly after I presented evidence for ArbCom, and that he made the "warning" in the article, shortly after FeelSunny and I spoke out in the ArbCom case, regarding the Cabal.

To summarize, I am being banned for something I did not do, by an administrator who is hostile towards me, using a policy I never heard of. I have no history of prior bans/blocks/warnings. Thus, I am appealing.

Response to Biophys

Biophys takes the song that I posted, altered it, and on the basis of his alterations, claims that I am a member of Nashi.

Biophys' Version: "knife-bayonet penetrates a trembling body of your enemy"

Actual Version: "knife-bayonet penetrates the body...The poet-praised Caucasian Region is covered in blood, in the hearts hatred stings, but SpetzNaz will close hatred's path with their chests, because SpetzNaz doesn't run from danger"

The point of the song is to show that everyone suffered, but Biophys altered it, to make it look like the SpetzNaz was out to get the "enemy". (The word "enemy" isn't mentioned in the entire song, not even once. Nor is the word "trembling".) Additionally, Biophys connects this song to the KGB, that he sees everywhere. However the song is about the SpetzNaz. SpetzNaz is as much related to the KGB, as the Green Berets to the CIA; in other words - there's no relationship.

Please see here for further elaboration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Response_to_Biophys

Response to Future Perfect at Sunrise

It is interesting to note how quickly Future Perfect at Sunrise changed his reasons from (1) ownership of the article and (3) threats, completely dismissing those, and now arguing for (1) hostile-combative attitude and (3) toxicity of the talkpage, but he's still keeping the revert-warring claim.

My hostile-combative attitude can be easily debunked, by the fact that I backed down, when a new user presented better evidence, that contradicted evidence presented by MDB, a publication that I have always backed, and even had a dispute with FutPerf about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_27#Italics_vs_Quotes, where he made the edit, and I took it to the talkpage.

My recent reverts resulted when a user blanked a whole section, and I restored that section. With the exception of that, I had no reverts after FutPerf issued his "warning", that weren't reverts of vandalism. The revert wars have died out, before FutPerf entered the article. Please review this section, which completely debunks FutPerf's claim about my hostile-combative attitude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Moving_Over_from_my_Talkpage_-_naval_stuff. A short summary: two users came to me to ask for a mini-dispute resolution regarding the position of the Russian Naval Forces in the 2008 South Ossetia War. How can I be hostile and combative, when fellow Wikipedians are asking me to resolve a dispute?

I had less than 100 overall reverts, not counting vandalism reverts. I have never broken 3RR. I was never warned for any of my reverts. I repeatedly asked fellow Wikipedians to use the talkpage. FutPerf shows that he has no data on the issue, by claiming for "dozens, maybe hundreds" of reverts. I understand people are busy, but when administering a two-month topic ban, isn't it at least necessary to know whether a user did 24 or 400 reverts? Isn't it vital to know the time span? In a year's time of editing that article, I had less than 100 non-vandalism reverts. That's less than 1 revert in three days.

In response to the new "evidence" brought in by FutPerf:

151: Litvinenko first worked for the FSB, and then worked against the FSB for Berezovsky's Group. That makes him a double-agent, which is all that I inserted. I didn't say whether he was a bad or good double agent, but if you are working for two different security organizations, giving the intelligence of one organization to another, you are a double-agent, and I fail to see what's so negative about that. Every country has double-agents, it doesn't automatically make one the embodiment of evil.

152: I wrote an article on Patrick Armstrong, who works with Sharon Tennison to strengthen the US-Russia relationship. I made an effort to exclude anything he wrote that was relevant to the 2008 South Ossetia War, out of the article. I fail to see how that skirts the issue.

Future Perfect at Sunrise also claimed negativity about my edits to the Second Chechen War and Invasion of Dagestan Articles. He has yet to provide proof of how those were bad. I am a military historian, I edit articles relevant to military history. Why is this a crime? And no user can be truly NPOV, we all know that, and we all have bias on the basis of our education. One punishes editors for warring over POV, not for merely inserting their POV into the articles. The very fact that FutPerf is bringing such "evidence", shows that he has no evidence. And in terms of the Invasion of Dagestan, right after I began to edit that article, FutPerf, who showed no interest in the article prior to my editing of it, moved to delete the SpetzNaz image. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dagestan_1999.jpg

(3) Toxic Atmosphere: the most toxic atmosphere that I have seen in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article, was created by FutPerf. For instance when he came into the article to offer his services, he was vehemently rejected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

I will quote some of the reception that FutPerf's idea received, and these sum up the views of everyone who edited the article, except Biophys, who thinks I'm a member of Nashi, and KGB is editing Wikipedia Articles. Here is the reception to the toxic and hostile environment that FutPerf created, and then turned around and accused me of creating; reception to FutPerf's "policing" the article:

A. I'm sorry, but I don't think threatening editors is the correct answer here. Many of us have been working hard to improve the article. Offliner (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

B. So let me get this straight. An administrator is threatening to block a group of users who are almost entirely responsible for the article in its current form, simply because of the unavoidable fact that the topic is controversial and there are parties on both sides who are adamant that the article stay neutral from their view? So what would you rather, one person or one group with coinciding views to edit it to their liking with no disruptions? Your logic is incomprehensible to me...LokiiT (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

C. If I'm thinking of the same "small group of editors" that you're referring to, Future Perfect at Sunrise, I belive that you're sadly mistaken. Although disagreements do break out, as they usually do on such a controversial and fairly recent topic, this "small group of editors" has done a superb job of revamping this article over the past several months. There is little revert-warring occurring, and the only reason for the high revert count is due to the fact that Reenem's edits are often reverted, as they are done improperly and violate WIkipedia rules, as HistoricWarrior said earlier...Laurinavicius (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

D. Do I understand it right your last message means you intend to block me from editing this article together with a "whole cast of its regular editors" unless I convince you this article can breath with me editing it? If so, you can proceed with your administrator duties and rights and block me right away, if this is your intent. Please take into account that whatever decision you make, you make it on your own discretion, of course, and this message is in no way an expression of my wish to be blocked. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FurPerf's threats and subsequent carrying out of said threats, are the reason for the hostility that he is getting, and not just from me.

Nobody is accusing Future Perfect at Sunrise of EMLL, and the Jacurek case is irrelevant. The accusation I made, was that as soon as FeelSunny and I spoke out in the ArbCom case, Future Perfect at Sunrise threatened us in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article, thereby creating the toxic atmosphere. He also "warned" Xeeron from the other side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War FeelSunny, Xeeron and I were the most active ArbCom contributors from the 2008 South Ossetia War article, that weren't directly involved in the case. And he directly accused the three of us.

The accusation against FutPerf is that he worked actively to against the writers of the 2008 South Ossetia War Article that commented on the ArbCom case, irrespective of the sides.

On the 18th of September, 2009 I asked to be included in the proceedings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

On the 22nd of September, Future Perfect at Sunrise appeared with a threat in the 2008 South Ossetia War Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring

On the 5th of November, I presented evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FEastern_European_mailing_list%2FEvidence&action=historysubmit&diff=324160468&oldid=323152291

On the 8th of November, I received the topic ban: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Topic-banned

And I've yet to understand why I was blocked per WP:DIGWUREN a policy that FutPerf didn't warn me about, a policy that I didn't even know existed.

Response to Looie496

According to FutPerf, I was "warned" twice:

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_29#Permanent_edit-warring (please note the response to FutPerf's "warning" by editors on all sides, as we tried to, in vain, inform him that the edit-war was over.)

And Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Question_to_Arbcom:_2008_South_Ossetia_War

Please note, that with the exception of Biophys, who thinks I'm Nashi because I posted a SpetzNaz song, (that's like relating Green Berets to Black Panthers,) no one supports FutPerf. In the second request, FeelSunny asks for proof of edit warring, and Biophys provides his altered version of the song instead. The second one was also phrased as "Question to ArbCom" to which ArbCom didn't reply. So it FutPerf's language, "Question to ArbCom" really means "warning to the editors I am mentioning below". You can find the elaboration here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Topic-banned

Response to Tznkai

I would like to note four things:

1. All of the evidence that was presented against me, was refuted. The very fact that Tznkai has to devolve to talking about my username, shows the drops of evidence that the accusers have. I feel like I'm at the Salem Witch Trials. Maybe Tznkai would be kind enough to show me which evidence by FutPerf he used, but for some reason I doubt he will do so.

2. The Arbitration Committee for ban appeals consists of Coren, Roger Davis and Cool Hand Luke. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBCOM#BASC I don't see Tznkai on there. The way I understood the process, was that only experienced administrators who look at all sides of the evidence, not just the parties' usernames, are subject to commenting on ban appeals. I apologize if I was wrong, and this is indeed Salem.

3. I apologize for requiring the administrators to actually get their facts right before the ban, or denying the appeal. Tznkai claims that the community at large has abandoned the topic area because of irritating partisans. If Tznkai was kind enough to actually check the logs, he would notice 9 active editors, in the past two weeks, in a single article! If the discussion page was included, the total number is 16 active editors, not to mention a few active IPs. We must have a lot of partisans. And our partisans must vote for both sides of the issue, and argue with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war&action=history

I'd also like to note that I was given a Barnstar for the article, by a completely neutral editor who was just watching for grammar/vandalism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HistoricWarrior007#For_the_Incredible_Work:_The_Tireless_Contributor_Barnstar, and that FutPerf, Tznkai, and Biophys need to present actual evidence, not posting a SpetzNaz song and claiming it's Nashi song, not accusing me of calling a double-agent, a double-agent, and in all honesty, you need something aside from my username to convict me.

4. Despite all this, Tznkai now accuses me of editing Wikipedia like a Patriot, whatever that means. It is interesting to note, how quickly the accusations change. I never knew that edition like a Patriot is against Wikipedia rules. A Patriot strives for NPOV, because he wants the World to know the truth about his country, be it bad or good, and is tired of the lies spread about it. A Nationalist edits for POV, because he just wants to tell the World that his country is #1, irrespective of reality. It is important to know what Patriotism and Nationalism mean, and to not confuse the two.

Comment by Biophys

Some background information. Biophys (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Looie496

FPS, in your topic ban you stated "you (and some others) were warned...". It would be helpful if you could provide a pointer to the warning. Looie496 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FeelSunny

Guys, when an admin comes to an article, and in two messages makes a threat to block users in packs - this is called "going postal". And here, thesame admin is going to topic ban an active editor that has added tons of useful information to the article, virtually making it look like it does now.

Yes, the post that FPAS incriminates to HW looks bad, as a "batteground spirit" one. The only real reason, though, is HW is alive and frank. There are dozens of editors out there with the same battleground type of behavior, who normally conceal their intentions, but may well coordinate their disruptive activity, and involve in any kind of illegal activity to push their POV.

However, only the 3-4 most misbehaving members of this Eastern European mailing list out of a dozen may now get a topic ban. Now here an admin just makes a three months topic ban for one wrong edit. Plus, HW was one of the editors that helped to protect the article from the anti-Russian mailing list members, and he was attacked by them numerous times in "2008 SO war" and other articles. And now he gets banned for "battleground behavior." No matter how much FPAS is sad about the initial unwelcoming attitude of the article editors towards him, his decision in this case is absolutely not fair.FeelSunny (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File the appropriate reports and gather evidence on the other ones then. I'm not going to go looking around just on your say so, nor am I capable of reading your mind as to figure out exactly who you are talking about.

In the vernacular, (frankness, if you prefer) put up, or shut up.--Tznkai (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not too difficult to get to the arbcom page which is linked in my previous post and see that one of the main purposes of the Eastern European mailing list members was to pester HW007 and Russavia and provoke them. It is not too difficult for an uninvolved administrator.FeelSunny (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ETST

I cannot be called a completely uninvolved person, since while I'm not a prominent editor of the article, I'm still a very avid reader of both the article and its talkpage, and have been monitoring them ever since their conception. That's why I decided to have my say in this case, as soon, as I became aware of it, since it strikes me as - and I see no other suitable description for it - completely unjust.

The was no evidence shown in the case to prove that HistoricWarrior is guilty, only accusations. I will do my best to show you why I believe that HistoricWarrior is valuable to the article, and to Wikipedia. Please bear with me, as I try to show you the side that the accusers will not.

To begin with, I saw the edit, that according to Future Perfect at Sunrise "broke the camel's back", and frankly, I find it laughable. I don't know, maybe to an article's outsider, HistoricWarrior's (let's admit it) overwhelming (but rather hilarious - even his opponents sometimes admit that) sarcasm can seem to cross the line, but my experience is that after a couple of posts one will understand that it's his general manner of speech, which doesn't carry any hostility towards anyone, and will stop noticing it whatsoever.

To be honest with everyone, I also have to say, that I completely agree with what HistoricWarrior said in that notorious post. Kamikaze tactics, stalking/haunting tactics, flashmobbing tactics, and just about every other dirty tactic one can think of has been implemented in the article, by certain users, and group of users including, but not limited to, the notorious Eastern European mailing list group.

I can only praise HistoricWarrior when he comes out and calls things their proper names. This, and also the fact, that he almost singlehandedly managed to oppose said group in their attempt to rename the article to an inherently POVed title with his clear and concise arguments. This act not only attracted, and still attracts a certain degree of hostility to him (which he constantly has to endure), but is the very reason, why he was awarded Barnstars, for his coolheadedness and professionalism. Maybe that "certain degree of hostility" is what Future Perfect at Sunrise has perceived as an "incredibly toxic environment" in the article, but he couldn't be more mistaken.

This level of hostility was present in the article much earlier than HistoricWarrior appeared. It was just concentrating between a different set of editors. And trust me when I say it, the current level of hostility is at its historical lowest. Judging by the latest discussion between editors (connected to release of UNOMIG report on the war, which cleared up majority of contentious issues, but introduced lots of others - as usual), the improvement in interaction is so strikingly noticeable to anyone who was unfortunate enough to see the article at least half a year before now, that I'm completely at loss of understanding, why Future Perfect insists on ruining that miraculously established balance between differently POVed editors. Does he really think, that if he removes one of the most prominent contributors to the article, the situation somehow will improve?

Let me assure him, then, that it will just mean that all contentious issues in the article from now on will be raised to community's attention by someone else - which will make said "someone" a next hotspot for all controversy and accusations by opposing groups. Will that "someone" and then another and another "someones" become next targets for Future Perfect's bans, until article won't have a single homogenous group with internally noncontradicting POV? Does that make any sense? Not to me.

Seriously, I think Future Perfect at Sunrise should familiarize himself more with the article's background, before trying to impose his uninformed decisions. Just where was he, when EEML cabal was taking their jump at the article (and the cabal is now getting only two months' ban each)? Where was he, when article renaming issue was so contrived that it took several rename attempts, three flashmob votes, and numerous renaming discussions? For a glimpse of what I'm talking about, all of these links concern article rename (and that's without 3 months worth of the latest ones):

Those neverending rename discussions were so dirty, long (really, REALLY long) and persistent, that some editors (even innocent bystanders) said they are disgusted and nauseated by it, and quit editing the article (if not Wikipedia, I'm afraid) forever. Ever since "we should start a rename discussion" is a running gag among extremely-dark-humor lovers, and any other editor will have a hard time reacting to such proposal adequately (in this regard, HistoricWarrior's reaction that he expressed in his post was more adequate, than I myself would have been able to muster on his place).

Despite all that and unlike some other editors, HistoricWarrior managed to remain open to compromise as can be seen from the latest example: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Moving_Over_from_my_Talkpage_-_naval_stuff).

I really insist on Future Perfect getting a full read of talkpage archives (no, seriously. it's a worthy read even in itself, not just only in this case), if he indeed wants to make informed judgements on article's proceedings. I also can only wonder, what he could have meant by an "incessant slow revert-warring" by HistoricWarrior, and I doubt there can be any evidence to it (I have never seen any). It occurs to me, though, that maybe Future Perfect have never seen before how truly controversial articles are usually edited.

Personally, I suggest to consider that: during a whole year of editing (and especially during one of the rename votes) many opponents would have liked to frame HistoricWarrior up. EEML cabal went as far, as trying to suck a case of Canvassing out of their collective finger, but it was so ridiculous, that it fell apart without starting. The simple fact, that even his worst opponents haven't managed to uncover any kind of misbehavior on his part that they could cling on, says more to me, than anything else.

Having said all that, I suggest to lift this ban, while majority of other editors still hadn't remembered their old grudges, and tried to bury HistoricWarrior and each other in accusations in order to gain "editing advantage", and thus returned on the wrong path of accusing each other instead of improving the article. I was really glad when that trend discontinued, and I really hope to never see it any more, thank you. ETST (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Archiving this in 24 hrs barring an uninvolved admin requesting otherwise = must bury this quickly, lest some honest administrator sees it. Meowy 03:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning appeal of topic ban

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

If I understand the basic argument here, HistoricWarrior007, aside from having an unfortunate username that suggests he is here to do battle instead of build a collaborative encyclopedia, claims the community at large is against this topic ban. The community at large has abandoned the topic area because of irritating partisans. I see no reason to believe that HistoricWarrior007 is not one of them. I see evidence that not only has HistoricWarrior007 has not left his rather strong opinions at the door, but has let it infect his work. I see excellent reason to extend the topic ban even wider, or to boot HistoricWarrior007 off the project entirely. Appeal denied.--Tznkai (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for the ban appeals subcomittee, rather than for another administrator to overturn a discretionary sanctions, you need to e-mail the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. As for evidence, I looked at your contribution log and at your talk page, which suggest that you identify yourself as a "patriot" (whatever that means to you) and you edit in advocacy for the associated point of view.--Tznkai (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving this in 24 hrs barring an uninvolved admin requesting otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brews ohare

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Brews ohare

User requesting enforcement: Dicklyon (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare topic banned ("banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months")
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Brews ohare restricted ("...repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.")

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[6] This most recent, and hundreds of others (including a dozen on that page today alone), edits on essays and guidelines about how to write scientific articles in wikipedia should be interpreted as within the scope of talk pages of physics topics, broadly construed. Since his restriction, Brews ohare has done nothing but carry on his voluminous fights and disruption at a meta level, by going to wikipedia space instead of article space.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)

[7] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_2 In a 'request for clarification' just a few days ago, Brews was sternly warned: "I would tend to agree that the specific incident of pointing to the talk page of a banned topic while discussing policy was not a violation of the letter of the sanction. That being said, it drags the spirit of the sanction into a dark alley and beats it senseless before having its way with it. Brews ohare, you would do well to listen to the oft repeated advice to stop beating the dead horse and move on. I would rather not have to tighten your restriction or impose new ones, but if you insist on pushing an agenda (however right you believe it may be) then we will have no choice." Brews's reaction there was not contructive or promising.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Clarify the "broadly construed" of the topic ban, and block if he keeps this up.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Numerous editors and admins have advised Brews ohare to find a constructive way to contribute to wikipedia, but he will not let go of the troubles that got him sanctioned. He provides an ongoing disruption by pouring his energy into trying to change policies around the editing of scientific articles (physics and electronics being his main expertise); he often outshouts all other editors who are trying to have a discussion, as his contribs history as a whole will attest.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [8]

User talk:Brews ohare#Enforcement request notification

Discussion concerning Brews ohare

Statement by Brews ohare

An action is open here for clarification of the remedies imposed upon Brews ohare. Despite that open action, we have now a new Requests/Enforcement brought by Dicklyon, which properly belongs as part of that clarification proceeding, and indeed, cites as its justification a comment from the "Arbitrator views and discussion" segment of that proceeding as though this comment in a discussion thread were, in fact, the determination of that clarification process. The other diff provided as "evidence" of misbehavior is a contribution to a discussion of how WP articles might be written, and has no bearing at all upon "physics related" discussion, as Dicklyon is well aware. There is, thus, no evidence whatsoever to support this action.

In view of the subsidiary nature of this Requests/Enforcement, being properly part of the Clarification proceeding, the various arguments I have advanced in that proceeding are equally relevant here, and I hereby incorporate them in this proceeding. This Requests/Enforcement hearing cannot properly proceed until the Clarification proceeding is concluded, and therefore the present Requests/Enforcement should be refused. If the Clarification proceeding resolution ultimately appears to warrant an enforcement hearing, this Requests/Enforcement can be re-opened using the conclusions of that action instead of an intermediary comment from a discussion there, as is only proper. Furthermore, the restriction upon my activity imposed by Tznkai is an arbitrary and unsupported action that presumes upon the results of an open Clarification hearing, and should be overridden. Brews ohare (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The final remarks below appear to indicate that Tznkai considers this matter closed, and that there is no requirement whatsoever that the evidence and the statements presented here, whether from Brews ohare or from others, need be considered in any way. In fact, Tznkai considers this outrageous action taken with no justification whatsoever, and with no intention to provide justification, is a mild and generous action compared to what Tznkai considers appropriate to Brews ohare. Brews ohare (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just what Tznkai considers an indefinite block is unclear, and no circumstances that could lift this block are identified. Brews ohare (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

Please indef block until Brews agrees to drop the stick and edit something else. He's gaming his topic ban, engaging in the same sort of disruptive behavior that lead to the sanction in the first place. Jehochman ^Talk 20:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really so pressing that it can't wait on arbcom finishing up with the request for clarification? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the current request for enforcement, it appears that there is only one diff that was presented as evidence. [9] There doesn't appear to be any disruption at the talk page of the diff as a result of that comment by Brews, contrary to Jehochman's remark. See the section We are writing for Wikipedia readers, not for University students of WT:Editing scientific articles.--Bob K31416 (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. John R. Brews was wrongly banned from editing all physics pages by an incompetent Arbcom. Brews has been working constructively with Michael C. Price, Likebox me and a few others on the essay WP:ESCA. Most of the people he works with strongly disagreed with what Brews was trying to edit in te speed of light article. Also the problem that led to the Arbcom case had to do with Brews dominating the talk page to get his way. There s no trace of that kind of behavior now. The editors on thepages that Brews is working on are not complaining at all. The people who are complaining are Jehochman, Dicklyon, Headbomb etc. who are not editing the pages Brews is editing now.

What they are doing is checking what Brews is doing, finding out that Brews is not editing the articles they have said Brews should edit (e.g. the article on Apple pie, making such suggestions to Brews is an act of incivility, i.m.o), instead they see that Brews is editing the essay I started WP:ESCA which they do not like, they get irritated and then they declare that to be disruptive behavior.

I hope that Arbcom would let engineering professor Brews edit in his area of expertise again asap. Note that fundamental physics is not his expertise and that this was a factor in the speed of light page. It would be a loss to Wikipedia if a retired Prof. cannot edit in his area of experise.

A note about Dicklyon. Dicklyon was editing together with Brews some articles in which Brews is an expert. There Dicklyon and Brews also did not go along. It could be that Arbcom chose Dicklyon's side in these conflicts, perhaps getting the impression that Brews is a physics crank. It was often Dicklyon who was behaving in an unreasonable way there, based on the physics. If you do not understand any physics and are a Wiki-Lawyer, then it may look like Dicklyon was behaving in a reasonable way.

E.g. what Dicklyon would often do was objecting to edits simply because he could not find a literal quote in a source using his text editor's search facility, while refusing to read/study the source. Collaborating with Dicklyon was extremely frustating to Brews. Dicklyon has continued to behave in this unreasonable way. Unfortunately, the Wiki rules allow Dicklyon to do this. Count Iblis (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reliance on WP:V is a typical way to push back on ideosyncratic original research. The rules don't just allow it, they encourage it. But it has never been about "a literal quote"; I did sometimes get impatient with reading his sources when he wouldn't point out where to find what he was referring to and I couldn't easily spot it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Brews never responded when I asked if I could address him by his real-life name; are you sure that's OK? Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brews has written an open letter to Jimbo Wales some time ago giving his real name and credentials. In fact, Headbomb argued that this open latter was itelf a infraction of his Arbcom restriction when he filed the AE last week.

About the "literal quotes" issue, I agree that if Brews edits a lot then it may be difficult to keep up. This domination of the talk pages was always the real problem. If we look at what Brews is doing now, then I don't see the relevance to that problem. After all, he is now collaborating with Michael C. Price, one of his strongest critics in the speed of light dispute. Count Iblis (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I would describe it as "collaborating". --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is not really causing any trouble there. You could easily let him write a new paragraph in the essay without causing much trouble. Can we say that about Jayjg? Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg is not topical. He isn't even remotely topical.--Tznkai (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of disruption or breaking topic ban ... what I see is a witch-hunt and it should stop or be stopped. When will it be realised that what ohare needs is a mentor not a block? And Tznkai, your restriction below and the way you refer to 'repeated violations' (or whatever) is outrageous ... he has done nothing wrong (verbosity and energy are hardly crimes) and is certainly not harming wp atm. Abtract (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And when it comes to the original problem that prompted the Arbcom case in the first place, i.e. trouble on the speed of light page, then we can all see that it is again a horrible mess over there. Dicklyon's attitude is absolutely not helpful there. I think all editors were reminded by Arbcom to behave, so perhaps Arbcom should look at the behavior of the current speed of light editors and see if some editors to be sanctioned.

I also question what Dicklyon's motivation to attack Brews is right now. On the speed of light page, you see Dicklyon arguing fanatically against doing a Kindergarten level unit conversion, because that would be OR in his opinion. At the same time, he is attacking the essay WP:ESCA which would allow this (after proper discussions on the talk page, of course). It is clear that he sees the essay as a threat to his editing philosophy, so perhaps he is doing what Jayjg did last week: Try to get one of the contributors of the essay kicked out of Wikipedia? Count Iblis (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that essay as a threat to WP:NOR. But I am not attacking Brews. And I don't think most Kindergarteners would be able to work out the conversion to the unsourced 186,28239937⁄100584 miles per second. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Brews ohare

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Brews ohare is restricted indefinitely from editing any page except for his own talk page, WP:AE responding to this thread, or the relevant arbitration discussion, OR to open a single thread on the administrator's message board of his choice contesting this decision. This is in lieu of a block for repeated violations of topic ban, misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, and also authorized under the general probation provision of the relevant Arbitration case. This will be revisited upon the closure of the relevant clarification thread.--Tznkai (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brews ohare, two things. One, this isn't a court, there herebys and such . Two, you've misunderstood the relevant procedures, opening a clarification does not exempt you in the meantime. If you'd prefer, I can block you outright, and a clerk will transcribe your comments for you on the necessary threads. That would after all, be a clearer example of well established procedure.--Tznkai (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final ruling on this action

Has this action been accepted? Has this action been concluded with the statement above by Tznkai? Is an indefinite ban from WP actually allowed based upon one prosecuting administrator's notions? Shouldn't an independent non-involved administrator look at this? Shouldn't diffs and statements by other editors be considered? How is "indefinitely" identified, or is "forever" what is meant? The requested action was not a block but a clarification. Brews ohare (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A site ban is a sanction; the relevant arbitration case provides that a single administrator may sanction you for failing to abide by WP policies. Indefinitely in this case would extend for the year term of your probation. MBisanz ^talk 19:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lapsed Pacifist

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Lapsed Pacifist

User requesting enforcement:
2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2#Lapsed Pacifist restricted

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:

[10] First revert on John Adams Project, made without discussion on the talk page which is required
[11] Second revert (see below for extended commentary as to why this is a revert in my opinion), made in less than a week which is a breach of the remedy, and again made without discussion on the talk page which is required
[12] Revert without discussion on the talk page. Although a talk page post was made, it would require extreme amounts of wikilawyering to argue that "I agree, we need an Indochina section" is actually discussing the revert being made and the merits or otherwise of it
[13] Revert to his own version, made without discussion on the talk page which is required
[14] Another revert made without discussion on the talk page which is required
[15] Another revert made without discussion on the talk page which is required

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Admin discretion

Additional comments by 2 lines of K₃₀₃:
Brief explanation of why I believe the second revert on John Adams Project qualifies. The edit is an attempt to claim that the people being held at Guantanamo Bay are internees. This is basically the same as the first edit and first revert, regardless of the fact it's being added to a different sentence. Adding that they were internees is still a revert in my opinion, especially as claiming they are resulted in the first two edits being reverted.

There are more diffs which show Lapsed Pacifist is ignoring his editing restrictions, but I believe the above should be sufficient. Lapsed Pacifist has a long history of ignoring such restrictions, as evidenced by the four blocks he received for violating his topic ban from the first arbitration case. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[16]

Discussion concerning Lapsed Pacifist

Statement by Lapsed Pacifist

Comments by other editors

I have already left LP a gentle reminder about their conduct as part of this post. This went unanswered. From the last RfAR LP was restricted to a 1RR which they have been technically keeping to but may not been honoring the spirit of the sanction. This diff shows a second revert just barely outside the 7 day restriction period. The RfAR also required a discussion of reversions which as can be seen from LPs contribution hasn't happened with the exception of one revert where they reintroduced a picture back into the lead of article, that was designed to show an anti-US POV and had no context (ie pic is of My Lai Massacre and there was no section on Vietnam in article). Coming from RfAR:-

LP was encouraged to use edit summaries, there has been no change of behaviour in this area. LP used confrontational edit summaries in the past and has done so again since this being raised as an issue.
Personal attacks were also raised and LP was reminded to comment on content and not the contributor but has breached that here.
LP was topic banned from for introduction of POV material, Original research, and soapboxing in support of a campaign group they are involved with. They have been petitioning on talk pages of related articles for introduction of material [17], [18]. In this example they have named a Garda Siochana Superintendent as being subject of a disciplinary procedure on a talk page, despite them not being named in the ref supplied. This was advocating a breach of WP:V and was OR. I also considered the comment to be a BLP breach and renamed the thread.
LP was subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist which had an outcome of a topic ban on articles relating to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The Irish section of this diff contains edits which I believe is again pushing the bounds of what is acceptable under the previous RfAR. LP admits on their userpage that at least one of the articles which is linked would be an article that Admins could interpret them being topic banned on. Their last block was related this sort of behaviour and was the fourth for violation of sanctions.

It should be noted that during their last RfAR, LP didn't make much input. Despite editing actively throughout the time it was open LP neglected to enter a statement or to contribute in any meaningful way apart from rebuttal of one set of evidence. LP made no response at all to the last RfE. LPs behaviour has shown they have scant regard for wikipedias process. One Night in Hackney has asked for enforcement to be at admins discretion which I agree with. I would also ask that LP be required to make much better use of edit summaries and for clarification of what is or isn't acceptable on talk pages of topic banned articles. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first thoughts (and it may not be supported by the AE stuff, since that is 1 week, up to the 5th, which can be 1 year, but I consider it discretionary, since he has a history of violating topic restriction, having violated the OTHER topic restriction he is under four times so far), that Lapsed Pacifist is a strong net negative to this project, not interested in collaborative encyclopedia building. Two ArbCom cases against him (with repeated findings that he was an edit warrior, etcetera). No participation in his most recent ArbCom, indeed edit warring his way into a two week block during it. If I had the decision here, it would to block him for a month or so as a result of the AE report, and possibly open an AN/ANI report into an indefinite block and/or community ban. I will not take action due to appearances of bias (being the person who handled the LAST AE report for him), but will support any such items per above. SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I share Fozzie's sense of frustration with LP, I'm leaning towards a 1-week block, partially because of the ArbCom ruling, and partially because the 2nd revert is borderline. PhilKnight (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that LP was required by ArbCom to discuss any content reversions on the talk page. I'm not seeing that from him either. 19:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs)

Indeed. Although I acknowledge myself the 1RR breach is somewhat borderline, the lack of discussion of reverts isn't. The restriction says "Should Lapsed Pacifist exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below", so that seems pretty clear cut to me. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, this was auto-archived. Can someone take care of this, please? Sad to see it fall off the table. SirFozzie (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) It seems this may be left because of the time lapse but before this is closed could we have clarification as what is acceptable on the talk pages of topic banned articles? LP is continuing to try and push their agenda on talk pages. Also this edit made today is another example of pushing the limits of what may or may not acceptable from the remedy at their first RfAR. I would really appreciate input an the talk page matter. Thanks G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the edits GainLine has pointed out, as well as his unxplained revert here, I think that these are new violations of his restrictions (not just the revert one, but the requirement that he fully discuss all content reversions before doing them. Tznkai, would you take a hard look at these? (My thoughts is until such time as he responds to the community's concerns, that he be indefblocked) SirFozzie (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC) SirFozzie (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the situation, I would urge some consideration of past behaviour, and not just behaviour at this point in time. Simply stopping editing for a short period of time and expecting to avoid consequences doesn't and shouldn't work. It's not that easy, and it doesn't work that way in the real world. Lapsed Pacifist has repeatedly tried to game the system, and is pushing the boundaries as far as he can. This situation needs to be looked at and appropriate sanctions may need to be looked at, though perhaps ANI might be a better option? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to echo Steve and SirFozzies sentiments. Its not like the current behaviour is something new here and its not even a gradual slip back into old ways. LP has resumed from where they have left off from before their last RfAR. Despite remedies designed to help them steer clear of trouble, they have pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable and indeed past it in not discussing reversions as well as continuing to seek the razors edge of acceptability from their first RfAR. If anything behaviour has deteriorated even further in failing to engage in any meaningful with communication attempts. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 13:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up - Lapsed Pacifist has violated his topic ban here, right after his block expired, and has clearly a) Edited an article related to Corrib gas, which he is indefinitely topic banned from. He also made this revert without discussing issues on the talk page. There have been other incidents which will be elaborated on by another editor. Perhaps further measures need to be taken? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Going to lean towards declining as stale, LP doesn't seem to be editing all that much, and I had been under the impression that someone had handled this several days ago. I'll act immediately next time, presuming I'm online.--Tznkai (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a huge fan of the sanction structure here, but LP has ignored a point blank request to follow the very reasonable requests of his remedy, and has been blocked for 24 hours. I will note for the record that while ignoring communications and reports will delay my actions, it will also encourage me to do them in the end. Will log tomorrow.--Tznkai (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hrs following unambiguous topic ban violation. This is getting irritating.--Tznkai (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barcelona.women

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Barcelona.women

User requesting enforcement: Dailycare (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Barcelona.women (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # [19] BW claims to have explained actions in Talk, however no edits were made in Talk.

[20] BW inaccurately accuses another editor of vandalism
[21] BW replaces sourced text with unsourced and/or poorly/incorrectly sourced text, e.g. Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is claimed to have criticised UN Watch, without sources.
[22] Edit warring
[23] Edit warring
[24] Edit warring
[25] Edit warring
[26] Edit warring
[27] Edit warring, accusing other user of sockpuppeting

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): # [28] Warning by Dailycare

[29] Warning by 71.156.89.167 (3RR)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block concerning UN Watch page

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: User BW has appeared on Wikipedia at the beginning of this month and edited the UN Watch page exclusively. His/her edits consist of repetitively reverting text critical of the organization and replacing it with material that appears to have been designed to portray the UN Watch organization in an unrealistically positive light. BW has not genuinely responded to repeated requests to discuss content issues on the talk page. In detail, BW has not responded to questions raised on the talk page where the verifiability of her edits have been questioned. It is not clear if a genuinely new user would be aware of sockpuppeting.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABarcelona.women&action=historysubmit&diff=326373378&oldid=326343373

Discussion concerning Barcelona.women

Statement by Barcelona.women

Comments by others about the request concerning Barcelona.women

Result concerning Barcelona.women

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I am inclined to give this user an additional chance to edit constructively rather than block them. Therefore, I am placing them on an indefinite 0RR in regards to the UN Watch article and a 1RR on all Israel-Palestine articles, broadly construed. If they fail to heed this, any sysop may block them appropriately. NW (Talk) 21:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Human Rights Believer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Human Rights Believer

User requesting enforcement: No such user (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: # Tetovo [30]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): # [36] Warning by No such user (talk · contribs)

[37] Warning by Phantomsteve (talk · contribs)
[38] Warning by Phantomsteve (talk · contribs) Warning by Chrisrus (talk · contribs)
[39] Warning by Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Block or topic ban. As I browse through his talk page and contribution history, an indefinite block seems in order. Here Zsero posits that he's a sockpuppet of Lover Of Democracy (talk · contribs). Indeed, it's fairly obvious [40] [41].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs) is engaged in a pro-Albanian soapboxing campaign in articles related with Kosovo, Serbia and Republic of Macedonia. I turned his attention to WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary_sanctions here, [42], but he continued in the same vein on Tetovo [43], Noel Malcolm [44], Adem Jashari [45], and here [46]. Earlier the same day, the spree included Serbia ([47]), Talk:Serbia ([48] "fascist Serbs"), and Adem Jashari ([49]) His talk page history [50] is full of warnings related either with Balkans-related articles, or edit-warring on articles related with popular culture No such user (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [51]

Discussion concerning Human Rights Believer

Statement by Human Rights Believer

Comments by others about the request concerning Human Rights Believer

I firmly support an indefinite block. This user is here solely to disrupt. --Cinéma C 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've seen no evidence that this user intends to follow Wikipedia policy. Kenji Yamada (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Human Rights Believer

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Topic banned indefinitely. NW (Talk) 21:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hudavendigar

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Hudavendigar

User requesting enforcement: Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Hudavendigar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, violation of 1RR

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: First revert, [52]; Second revert, [53], of this edit [54]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy): [55] Warning by Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): High time for a permanent topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The edits I have highlighted here are just the tip of the iceberg. Hudavendigar is not only engaged in edit-warring but also Original Research. On the Niles and Sutherland Report article, he not only presents sources which fail verification but synthesizes them to provide a narrative which is completely independent of the argument of any actual historian. After editor Kansas Bear correctly identified this problem and removed the problematic text, he was reverted by Hudavendigar, who promised that he would introduce the correct page numbers/sources. Once more, the sources failed to back up the claims in the text and Kansas Bear removed it once more, only to be reverted by Hudavendigar again, violating 1RR.

But the issue itself transcends just ordinary edit-warring. Hudavendigar approaches these articles with the notion that anything related to Armenian Genocide is inherently false or biased and that a cabal of certain editors are concertedly working to ruin the image of the Republic of Turkey. For some reason, he goes to extreme pains to disprove the evidence of Armenians living in the lands of what is now Turkey during the ancient and medieval periods. Even after highly reliable sources are provided, he still ventures onto the talk page of certain articles (see, e.g. Bitlis' talk page) to make inflammatory statements such as "It is a mystery how people even come with these so-called historic names...It was an Ottoman, Selcuk, Roman and Greek city all through history. These forced namings seem to be driven solely by nationlaistic agendas and emotions." On the article on historian Justin McCarthy, a notorious denier of the Armenian Genocide, he attempts to whitewash his statements and disingenuously adds that "Armenian nationalists" have criticized the historian, a statement which is completely at odds with the cited sources.

He already has been blocked 4-5 times now (the most lengthy one being the most recent one, for one month [56]; see his talk page), but the warnings are simply ineffective. I believe that he has been give enough chances for to improve his editing habits but his arguments have not changed one bit since he began editing on Wikipedia. He sees everything as white and black, and believes that a conspiracy exists to besmirch the reputation of Turkey. The arguments of neutral editors are spurned and disregarded without so much as a blink. An indefinite topic ban on all articles relating to Armenia and Turkey seems to be in order.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[57]

Discussion concerning Hudavendigar

Statement by Hudavendigar

The subject of this specific complaint is the Niles and Sutherland Report Article. This very modest article has drawn ther ire of a number of well known Armenian nationalist edit warriors for some reason.

Another well known editor, Kansas Bear, who has engaged in edit warring often, had removed a referenced paragraph wholesale on 18th. He did not bother to bring it up on the discussion page first. He had complained that the reference did not support the paragraph.

He was partly right. There were confusing page numbers and reference actually contained two seperate book references. So I cleaned it up, kept one book that is most commonly referenced by Armenians, included page numbers, and placed in the article again.

Kansas Bear again deleted the whole paragraph within minutes and left derisive remarks in the discussion page. He again claimed the reference was insufficient. Apparently this individual is able to freely engage in edit warring.

This time I dug out a second reference, easily available on line and verifiable, included specific section and page numbers, and added another explanatory note and wrote in the paragraph in its new and improved version. As of this writing, it was still there. I have complained about this individual numerous times but his destructive activities continue.

Note that during this process neither Kansas Bear nor the individual launching the complaint presented any arguments concerning the content of the paragraph itself. Only the reference quality was questioned.

As the record clearly shows, I did not blindly revert any edits in this article. In fact, I did not remove any material. Each time a section was removed by Kansas Bear who also indicated why he was deleting them, I tried to address the complaints. In each edit I made, I included more and detailed references as Kansas Bear had demanded.

I fail to see how this contradicts any of the Wikipedia rules or any restrictions put on me.

I will not even comment on the other rather long list of grievences and complaints which all seem to be unrelated to the specifics here.

There seems to be no basis for this complaint in fact.

Comments by others about the request concerning Hudavendigar

I have also worked on the Niles and Sutherland Report article. Hudavendigar doesn't seem capable of editing in an appropriate way: he ignores what others have written, and does not seem to understand the concept of no original research. The "referenced paragraph" that he has just accused Kansas Bear of removing "wholesale" and of not bringing "it up on the discussion page first" has been discussed in the article's talk page, and not just by Kansas Bear in the "More attempts at giving opinion" section. I had fact tagged the words "This was in great contrast to the reports received by the American public during the War by the Armenians and the missionaries in the area friendly to them" in October, after Hudavendigar had added them to the article. On the 5th November Hudavendigar removed the fact tag and added a spurious reference. [58]. The reference was spurious because it is a book published in 1917 and it was being cited as a source to characterise a report published in 1919. I explained on the talk page why that particular reference could not be valid, and that I would be justified in removing the sentence unless a source for its claim could be produced. I removed the invalid citation and reinserted the fact tag. However, a few days later, rather than removing the whole sentence, I tried to rewrite it to make it less POV. In response, Hudavenger simply restored the old sentence, moved it down a paragraph, and reinserted the invalid citation: [59].

The same editing attitude is seen on many articles he has worked on: Here, for example, he is adding additional words, his own words, to a quote: [60]. Here [61] he has removed a photograph that had been extensively discussed in the article's talk page [62]. He simply refuses to take note of what other editors have written on that talk page. And in his very next edit he agressively inserts an uncited photograph from an unknown source and with an OR caption. [63]. Meowy 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Hudavendigar

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

@@ Line 408: / Line 408: @@
 ::Going to lean towards declining as stale, LP doesn't seem to be editing all that much, and I had been under the impression that someone had handled this several days ago. I'll act immediately next time, presuming I'm online.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 :::I am not a huge fan of the sanction structure here, but LP has ignored a point blank request to follow the very reasonable requests of his remedy, and has been blocked for 24 hours. I will note for the record that while ignoring communications and reports will delay my actions, it will also encourage me to do them in the end. Will log tomorrow.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 06:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
+::::Blocked for 72 hrs following unambiguous topic ban violation. This is getting irritating.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] ([[User talk:Tznkai|talk]]) 02:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 == Barcelona.women ==